some v/ge / <f*_ /& 



REMARKS AND EXTRACTS, 

tii reply to Mr. Pickering' 's Letter, on the fubjed of the 

EMBARGO, L 7S>i4^ ; 

^\^^"e prefent to the reader the letter, to- 
gether with our reply, becaufe we wiih him to examine 
both fides of this very interefting fubjeci. 

The body of our people are doubtlefs hcnefl : they wifh' 
tor truth, and truth only. Unfortunately for them, the 
leaders of parties are apt to be too warm in their political 
difcuffions, and to fubftitute perfonalities in place of fact 
and reafon. — In thefe pages nothing of the kind mall be 
found. 

The embargo is, to all claries of our people, a diitreffing 
meafure. War is {till more diftreiling ; but if to the dii- 
trelles, infeparable from the embargo, is to be added the 
painful perfualion that it was adopted as a war meafure, 
that it was forced upon us by the fecret mandates of tha- 
French Emperor ; if our Preiident and Congrefs have 
wantonly facrificed our independence, then is our fituation 
molt deplorable ; if our country is betrayed, it is our duty 
to affert our rights by the means which Providence ha^ 
left in our power. 

Before you decide on thefe important points, permit us 
to examine, 1ft. what was the fituation of the United 
States in refpecb to France and Great Britain at the time 
of paffing the embargo act: — 2d. to enquire what the Pre- 
iident has done or omitted to do, which his high fiatioa 
and the importance of the fubjecT. required. 

The firft French decree, affecling deeply the rights of 
neutrals was palled May 9, 1793, rendering liable to cap- 
ture the property of their enemies on board of neutral veffels. 
Previous to this, on the 25th of March, in the fame year, 
a convention between his Britannic Majefty and the 'Em- 
press of RulTia was figned in London, from which we 
copy the third and fourth articles. 



C 2 ] 



Art. IIL T'keir ssid^aajesties reciprocally engage, to shut all their 
f.ort-s against Frencn ships ; not to permit the exportation, in any case, 
from their said ports for France, of any military or naval stores, <%? 
com^grah*, salt mwt, or other provisions : and to take all measures in 
the.irpower for injuring the commerce of France, and for bringing her, 
by such means, to just conditions of peace. 

Art. IV. Their majesties engage to unite oil their efforts to fir event 
other powers, not implicated in this war, from giving, on this occasion of 
common concern to every civilized state, any protection whatever, directly 
or indirectly, m consequence of their neutrality, to the commerce or prop- 
erty of the French, on the sea, or in the ports of France. 

But in the year 1792, the French Convention had de- 
clared all France in a Hate of liege, and in referring further 
back we find theBritifh order of November 6, 1789, to 
flop and detain all mips laden with produce of any colony, 
belonging to France or conveying provifions or other flip- 
plies for the ufe of fuch colony. 

Writers have difagreed on the queftion, which nation 
firft began the violation of neutral rights. To us it is ex- 
tremely immaterial, fince we know that under color of 
thefe decrees and occafional blockading orders, we have 
fuffered from each nation fevere fpoliations and ruinous de- 
tentions of our property. Thefe have formed fubjects of 
complaint from our merchants to our government and of 
remonftrances, on the part of our government, at the 
courts of Paris and London. 

After the Emperor of France had nearly annihilated the 
independence of the allies of Britain on the continent, and 
broken down the neutrality of the nations, which had 
kept aloof from the conteft, he iilued his famous Imperial 
Decree of Nov. 21, 1806, declaring the Britifh iHes in a 
itate of fiege. This produced retaliating decrees on the 
part of Britain and countervailing decrees on the part of 
the French, till at length no commerce could with any 
fafety be carried on from this country to any part of 
Europe. « 

It does not appear that hoftility to the United States 
produced any of the foregoing decrees : they were produced 
by the furious and increafing hoftility of the two nations, 
each jealous, left alTrftance mould be afforded to the other, 
both engaged in the unprofitable conteft, " which mould do 
the other the greateft harm." 



[ 3 ] 

Wholly diftincl: from all this was the great difpute be- 
tween Britain and us, whether Britain had a right to fearch 
American vejftls for Britijh feamen or fubj eels and to take them 
from fuch vefels by force. In the midft of European convui- 
lions and occafional loffes under their former decrees, we 
were {till profiting by their fufferings and gaining wealth 
by the carrying trade, but the high claim of Britain to 
fearch our veffels for men was a violation of our fovereign- 
ty, an expofure of the liberties of our native citizens and 
a confequent hazard of our neutrality, which neither po- 
licy nor juirice required us to endure.— -Men of all parties 
in our country pro telle d a'gainft the claim of Britain. Our 
government made it a diftincl: article of negociation, and 
on the 5th of January 1804, Mr. Madifon, our Secre- 
tary of State addreffed to Mr. Monroe, our rninifer at 
London, an official letter, from which the following is a 
literal extract. 

K We consider a neutral flag on the high seas as a safeguard to those 
sailing under it. G. Britain on the contrary, asserts a right to search for, 
and seize her own subjects ; and under that cover, as cannot but . ppen, 
are often seized and taken off, citizens of the United States, and citizens 
•or subjects of other neutral countries, navigating the high seas, tinder the 
protection . of the American flag. 

" Were the right of G. Britain, in this, not denied, the abuses flowing 
from it .would justify the United States in claiming and expecting a dis- 
continuance of its exercise. But the right is denied, and on the best 
grounds. 

" Although G. Britain has not yet adopted, in the same latitude with 
most other nations, the immunities of a neutral flag, she wiil not deny the 
general freedom of the high seas, and of neutral vessels navigating them, 
with such exceptions onlv as are annexed to it by the lav/ of nations.—. 
She must produce then such an exception in the law of nations, in favor 
of the rights she. contends for. But in what written and received autho- 
rity wiil she find it ? In what usage except her own will it be found? 
She Will find in both that a neutral vessel does not protect certain objects 
denominated contraband of war, including enemies serving in the war, 
nor articles going to a blockaded port, nor as she has maintained, and as 
we have not contested, enemies property of any kind. But no where will 
;she find an exception to this freedom of the seas, and of neutral flags; 
which justifies the taking awav of any person, not an enemy in military 
• service, found on board a neutral 'vessel. 

" If the subjects of one sovereign may be taken from the vessels' of 
■another, on the high seas, the right of taking them when found, implied 
the riirht of searching; for them, ' a vexation 'of commerce, esnecii^v in 



[ 4 ]> 



" Taking reason and justice for the tests of this practice, it is peculiar- 
ly indefensible— because it deprives the dearest rights of a regular trial to 
which the most inconsiderable article of property captured on the high 
seas, is entitled ; and leaves their destiny to the will of an officer, some- 
times cruel, often ignorant, and generally interested, by his want of mari- 
ners, in his own decisions. Whenever property found in a neutral vessel 
is supposed to be liable on any grounds to capture and condemnation, the 
rule in all cases is that the question shall not be decided by the captor, 
but be carried before a legal tribunal, where a regular trial may be had, 
and where the captor himself is liable to damages, for such abuse of his 
power. Can it be reasonable, then, or just, that a belligerent commander, 
who is thus restricted, and thus in a case of mere property of trivial a- 
mount, should be permitted, without recurring to any tribunal whatever, 
to examine the crew of a neutral vessel to decide the important question 
of their respective allegiances, and to carry that decision into instant ex- 
ecution , by forcing every individual he may chuse, into a service abhorrent 
to his feelings, cutting him off from his most tender connections, exposing 
his mind and his person to the most humiliating discipline, and his life 
itself to the greatest dangers ? Reason, justice and humanity unite in pro- 
testing against so extravagant a proceeding And what is the pretext for 
it ? It is that the similarity oj * language and features between American citi- 
zens and British subjects are such as not easily to be distinguished, a?: d that 
without this arbitrary and summary authority to make the distinction, British 
subject? would escape, under the name of American citizens from the duty 
winch they owe to their sovereign. Is then the difficulty of distinguishing a 
mariner of one country from the mariner of the other, and the import- 
ance of his services, a good plea for referring the question whether he 
belongs to the one or the other, to any arbitrary decision on the spot, by 
an interested and unresponsible officer ? In all other cases the difficulty 
and the importance of questions are considered as reasons for requiring 
greater care and formality in investigating them. To say that precau- 
tions of this sort are incompatible with the object is to admit the object is 
unjustifiable ; since the only means by which it can be pursued are such 
as cannot be justified. 

The evil takes a deeper die, when viewed in its practice as well as its 
•principles. Were it allowable that British subjects should be taken out 
American vessels on the high *.eas, it might at least be required that the proof 
of their allegiance should lie on the British side. This ob vious and just rule is 
however ) reversed ; and every seaman on board,, though going from an Ame- 
rican fiort, and sailing wider an American flag, and sometimes even speaking 
an idiom, proving him not to be a British subject ; is presumed to be such, un- 
less shewn to be an American citizen. It may safely be affirmed that this is 
an outrage which has no precedent, andwmch Great-Britain would be among 
the last nations in the world to suffer, if offered on her own subjects and her 
own fag. Nor is it always against the right presumption alone, which L 
in favor of the citizenship corresponding with the-ilag. that the violence 
was committed. Not unfi-equently it takes place in defiance of the most 
positive proof certified in due form by an American officer. Let it not be 
said, that in granting to American seamen this protection to their rights ?/■ 
s :ch, the. point is yielded, that the proof lies on the American side. an . 



C 5 ] 



that the want of it in the prescribed form justifies the inference that th# 
seamen are not of American allegiance. It is distinctly to be understood, 
that the certificate, usually called a protection to American seamen, is not 
meant to firotect them under, their own or even under any other neutral flag 
on the high seas. We can never admit, that in such a situation, any other 
protection is required for them, than the neutral flag itself on the high 
seas. - . - 

" Whether, we consult the law of nations, or the dictates of justice, no 
pretext can be found for the British practice of making- impressments 
from American vessels on the high seas. 

Great Britain has the less to say in excuse for this practice, as it is in 
direct contradiction to the principles, on which she proceeds in other cases, 
whilst she claims and seizes on the high seas, her own subjects, volun- 
tarily serving in American vessels, she has constantly given, when sfee 
could give, as reason for not discharging from her service American citi- 
zens, that they had voluntarily engaged in it. Nay more, whilst she im- 
presses her own subjects from the American service, although they may 
have been settled and married and naturalized in the United States, she 
constantly refuses to release from hers, American seamen impressed into 
it, whenever she can give for a reason, that they were either settled or 
married within her dominions. Thus, when the voluntary consent of 
the individual favors her pretentions, she pleads the validity of that consent. 
When the voluntary consent of the individuals stands in the way of her pre- 
tentions, it goes for nothing ! When marriage or residence can be plead- 
ed in her favor, she avails herself of the plea. When marriage, resi- 
dence and naturalization are against her, no respect whatever is paid to 
either! She takes, by force, her own subjects voluntarily serving in our 
vessels. — She keeps by force American citizens involuntarily serving in 
hers. More flagrant inconsistencies cannot be imagined." 

This claim of Britain, thus repelled and denied by us, 
was ftill enforced by her in every fea ; even in the en- 
trance of eur own harbors our veffels were brought to by 
Britifh guns, and fuch men taken out, as in the opinion of 
the boarding officer, belonged to his royal matter. John 
Pierce, an American citizen, was killed, the Britifh officer 
tried in his own country and acquitted. Under the or- 
ders of Admiral Berkley the frigate Chefapeake was attack- 
ed and overpowered, feveral men killed and wounded and 
four men taken out of her by force. Proof that three of 
thefe were native Americans has been officially publifhed 
by our government. 

On this occaiion there Was, from end to end of the union, 
one fentiment of indignation. Both parties united in af- 
furances to mpport the government in demanding In- 
demnity FOR THE PAST AND SECURITY FOR THE FUTURE. 

The fpiritof 1776 appeared for a time to be revived, and 



[ 6 ] 



in that day no one thought of a cold apology for that fin« 
gie ad, while a right to repeat the outrage mould be in- 
lifted on. 

Dr. Bullus was fent to England, and our minifters were 
charged with a demand for fatisfaction of the outrage on 
the Chefapeake, which could not be made by Britain without 
her relinquijhment of the ajfumed right of fearch , from which 
the outrage had proceeded. The reply came in the form of 
a proclamation, in which the king of Great Britain calls on 
all his feamen in foreign countries to return into his fer- 
vice, difavows our naturalization law, which was made in 
conformity to our conftitution, and he efpecially infills on 
the fearch of our merchant veffels for his feamen* 

We are not in the habit of believing that men may not 
expatriate themfelves ; but England may infill on the per- 
petual allegiance of all her native fubjeclis and may enforce 
the claim wherever ftie can do it without violence to other 
nations, We make no diftmction between armed veffels 
and merchant veifels ; whatever rightfully bears the flag 
of the United States bears the emblem of their fovereisrn- 
ty and is entitled to their protection. Britain has doubt- 
lefs many fubjecls in our cities and towns, may {he enter 
thefe and feize them by force ? May me enter our harbors 
and feize on her men ? Either of thefe modes would be 
as juftifiable and lefs hurtful to us than to feize them on 
board a merchant veffel at fea, where their fervices may 
be neceffary to the prefervation of the veffel, cargo and 
lives of the remaining feamen. 

If a Britifh lieutenant or midlhipman may board one 
of our merchant veffels and decide that one man is a Bri- 
tifli fubjecl, he may decide that all are fuch ; at his nod ten 
or twenty American feamen may be doomed to fervitude 
for life in the Britiih navy. The extent, to which this 
wrong has been or may be carried, is of little moment, 
compared with our acquiefcence in fuch a tribunal to de- 
cide on the fate of our voyages and the liberties of our 
fons. 

The right of Britain to her own feamen creates no 
rip-ht to fearch our veffels for fuch feamen, and if me will 



L 11 3 



, .;ummcation, yet the different channels of promulgation through which 
the public are possessed of it, with the formal testimony furnished by the 
government of Spain in their decree, leaves us without a doubt that such a 
One has been issued. 

These decrees and orders taken together want little of amounting to a 
declaration that every neutral vessel found on the high seas, whatsoever 
be her cargo, and whatsoever foreign port be that of her departure or 
destination, shall be deemed lawful prize ; and they prove more and more 
the expediency of retaining our vessels, our SEAMEN, and our property 
within our own harbors, until the dangers to which they are exposed can 
be removed or lessened. 

TH: JEFFERSON* 

March If, 1308. 

The Prefident has communicated, at each time, all the 
documents in his poifeffion, relative to this important fub- 
jeci He has indeed requefted fome to be returned with- 
out publication. In proof that fome papers may be cor- 
rectly £C locked up in the executive cabinet" we prefent 
you the following high authority. 

On the 24th of March 1796, while Mr. Pickering was 
Secretary of State, the Houfe of Reprefentatives paled a 
refolution * calling on Prefident Washington for certain 
papers, relative to the Britilh treaty. The Prefident de- 
clined furnifliing the papers, faying " the nature of foreign 
" negotiations requires caution, and their fuccefs mull often 
66 depend on fecrecy, and even when brought to a conclu- 
" fion, a full difclofure of all the meafures, demands or 
u eventual conceffions, which may have been propofed or 
" contemplated, would be extremely impolitic ; for this 
" might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations 
fii or produce inconveniences, perhaps danger and mifchief 
ec in relation to other powers/ 5 

Oppofed to the refolution in the above cafe were James 
Hillhoufe, Ghauncy Goodrich, P^oger Grijwold, Nathaniel 
Smith j Zephaniah Swift, Uriah Tracy and others. 

A refolution of the prefent Houfe of Reprefentatives to 
call on the Prefident for official difpatches from France has 
been negatived : we trull that thofe, who were in the ne- 
gative in both infeances, voted correctly.. 

Ordinarily a call for papers in fuch cafes proceeds from 
hoftility to the Prefident or his meafures. It ufually im- 
plies a want of confidence in him, a fufpicion that he has 
omitted his duty. 



L 12 ] 

The remark of Prefiderit Wafhingtoift refpecling the 
iauiion andfecrecy, required by the nature of foreign nego- 
tiations, applies with great force at this time. In his case 
the treaty was ratified ; but now we have pending negotia- 
tions of great moment with the two principal powers of 
Europe, each of which has a minifier at our court, watch- 
ing with jealoufy our lead departure from neutrality. 

If the precedent is to be eftabliffeed, that refolutions to 
call for difpatches mall be pafTed, fuch refolutions will be 
offered immediately after every receipt of difpatches, and 
if the Prefident mall deem it his duty to refufe them, 
every conduction, unfavorable to him and to our foreign 
relations, will be adopted. 

The conflitution has provided, that the Preiident mall 
cc from time to time give to the Congrefs information of 
the flate of the union, and recommend to their conhder- 
ation fuch meafures as he shall judge necessary and 
expedient.— The Prefident ha:s recommended the mea- 
fure of an embargo and has accompanied his recommen- 
dation with every document then in his poffejfiion^ which his 
Nation, his duty and the importance of the fuhjecl re- 
quired. 

Having exhibited the grounds of our controverfy with 
England, the reafons of the embargo and the Prefident's 
agency in that meafure, we advance to a brief review of 
Mr. Pickering's letter. 

The federal papers, recommending this letter to the 
public, tell us that Mr. Pickering was an officer in bur re- 
volutionary army, a Secretary of ^State under the two 

himfelf c ° he defies the world to point, in the whole courfe 
" of a long and public life, at one milance of deception, at 
6i a fmgle departure from truth. " 

We "readily allow to Mr. Pickering all the eminence and 
correctnefs of character, which' he and his friends can 
claim for him. His removal from ofHce by Mr. Adams 
is only a proof that a great man may be denounced by 
another great man, merely on fufficton of fa els ^ which have 



[ is ] 

It has been objected to this letter, that it was publifhect 
and circulated in thefe northern States on the eve of our 
elections, in order to influence the votes of freemen ; but 
how can freemen vote without information ? If the dif- 
clofure, made by Mr. Pickering, is correct, the friends of 
the adminiftration ought to lofe all influence in thefe 
States. 

Strong charges demand ftrong proofs, we will examine 
the charges of Mr. Pickering in their order. 

lit. He ftates the communication of four documents by 
the Prefident, which, after being read in the Senate ', were 
referred to a committee, that two of them were returned 
to the Prefident on his requeft, to be depofited among 
other executive fecrets. Thefe, fays Mr. Pickering, ought, 
in form or fubftance, to have been made public. The 
Prehdent judged otherwife ; he had the high authority of 
Prefident Wamington, 6 that the fuccefs of foreign nego- 
tiations often depends on fecrecy' ; but no great fecrecy 
could attach to papers, which had been read to both Homes 
of Congrefs. 

As the Senate has the command of its own time, and 
as there is no proof that the Prefident limited the Senate to 
four bows confideration, no blame can be imputed to him. 
An embargo, if laid at all, mult be laid without the ufual 
delays of congrellional bufineis : even in the fhort time, while 
the me afar e was under confederation, many letters were iffued 
and pub l ifhe deflating the biifinefs of the fecret fejjion arid the 
■probability of an embargo. 

Mr. Pickering fays that " the constitution, which re- 
quires the Prefident to give to Congrefs information of 
the Hate of the union, certainly meant, not partial, but 
complete information on the fubject of a communication, 
fo far as he poiIeHed it, and that his recommendations of 
meafures fhould be bottomed on information communicated, 
not on facts withheld and locked up in the executive cabi- 
net. — This is doubtlefs true, and it is as true that the con- 
ltifution repofes this buiinefs in the difcretion of the Pre- 
fident, and fubjecls him to impeachment before the Senate 
for any breach of his conititutionai truft. 

But where do we find any proof of facts withheld and 



t I* '] 

kcked up in the executive cabinet ? Had Mr. Pickering tes- 
tified this, great credit would be due to his teftimony, but 
he infers it from the facl, that he and live others of the 
Senate did not judge the documents Sufficient to juftify 
the laying of an embargo, while 22 of the fame body did 
judge them Sufficient. Minorities are always cut-voted, never 
convinced. To them the reaSons of the" majority generally 
appear weak, always inconckilive, In the higheit council 
of the nation Hiall a fingle member arraign before his con- 
liituents the majority (including his colleague the Hon. 
John O. Adams) on the heinous charge of having acted 
under a blind confidence in the executive, and ■ fhall this charge, 
without any proof convict the Prefident of violating his oath 
of oiSce, by withholding information, which the eon- 
ititution required him to difclofe ? 

Let the reader carefully examine ' Mr. Pickering's letter 
for proof of this great charge againfl the Prefident, with 
which he connects every argument againfl the embargo, 
Mr. Pickering aiks, 64 why are thefe difpaiches withheld by 
4i the executive ? Are they Jo clofely locked up, becaufe they will 
fi * not bear the light ? Would their difclcfure roufe the fpirit of 
6 ' the people, JIM ^/lumbering in blind confidence in the execu- 
" five ? Hasjhe French Emperor required that cur ports, like 
Ci ihofe of his vajfial States in Europe, be fhut againjl BritiJJy 
c; commerce? Is the embargo a Jubjiiiute, a milder fonn of com- 
* pliance with that harfh demand, which, if exhibited in its 
tc naked a,nd infulting afpedt, the American fpirit might ye( re~ 
" fent ? — Thefe are queilions, more alarming than "the 
" portentous filence of the Prefident" ! they are full 
of meaning, but they contain not a particle of proof. 

They {hew indeed that Mr. Pickering has " no confi- 
dence in the wifdom or correclnefs of public rneafures," 
which is precifely the cafe with all men in all countries^ 
who have belonged to minorities, 

Mr. Pickering prefumes that there mull have been do- 
cuments concealed, becaufe enough were not produced to 
convince him. Vv ill he therefore expect his conftituents 
to believe, that becaufe he has produced no proofs, he has 
proofs locked up, on which his conftituents mult rely, by 



r 15 j 



reafonof their confidence in him ? But rational men will 
not accept lufpicions and queftions in place of proofs. 

The fame charges were made on the floor of the Houfe 
of Representatives, and this has been urged by fome as an 
argument of their truth, but does afet of improve d charges 
iupport the fame fet of unproved charges made in another 
place ? The charges were repelled on the fame floor and the 
accufer was called on CJ to name a fingle individual, who 
" had ever feen a document in poffeffion of the executive, 
" bearing on our relations with France, which the execu- 
" tive ought to have communicated, but had wilfully with- 
" held — of to fhew a parade of evidence that the pro- 

ceedings of the government had flowed from a mandate 
f* of Napoleon or from the influence of any foreign po- 
£C tentate on earth— or that they had been actuated by 
f c any influence other than a facred, folemn and honorable 
" fenfe of duty, and with a view folely directed to promote 
" the beft interefts, protect the inertimable rights and pro- 
Ci vide for the common defence of our common country." 

The accufer was filent. No perfon offered a word of 
proof or of reply. But, fays Mr. Pickering, " If the dif- 
" patches are really unimportant, what harm can arife from 
cs telling Congrefs and the nation officially* that they con- 
66 tain nothing of moment to the liberty, the honor or the 
" interefts of the United States We reply, that if a 
man is capable of withholding difpatches, when his oath 
of office requires him to communicate them, if he is capa- 
ble of confederating with the French Emperor to betray 
the United States ; if he is capable of fesretly contriving 
to involve his country in an unneceffary and ruinous war, 
then no confidence can be placed in his official affertions 
or denials. 

Connected with the unproved charge of fecret difpatch- 
es is a courfe of difdnct charges againft the Prefident, as 
having artfully inflamed the public mind by detaching 
100,000 militia to aggravate the public refentment againft 
Great Britain to excite a. war pulfe, and in the height of 
this artificial fever to renew our demands on that nation in 
the poor expectation of extorting, in that ftate of things. 
SOncefiiqns of points, which jhe had always confidered as 



C is ] 



her rights. A fhart recurrence to actual facts will 
refcue the Prefident from thefe unfounded fufpicions. 

On the 12th and ISthof February 1806, the following 
refolutions were palled in the Senate of the United States, 
the honorable Mr. Pickering voting in favor of both of them, as 
appears by the journals. 

Resolved, That the capture and condemnation, under the orders of the 
British government, and adjudications of their courts of admiralty, of 
American vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their being employ- 
ed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of 
peace, is an unprovoked aggression upon the property of the citizens of 
these United .States, a violation of their neutral rights, and an encroach- 
ment upon their national independence. 

Resolved, That the President of the United States, be requested to 
ft demand the restoration of the property of their citizens, captured and 
condemned on the pretext of its being employed in a trade with the ene- 
mies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace, and the indemnifica- 
tion of such American citizens, for their losses and damages sustained 
by these captures and condemnations ; and to enter into such arrange- 
ments with the British government, on this and ail other differences sub- 
sisting between the two nations, (and particularly respecting the impress- 
ment of American seamen,) as may be consistent ^with the honor and in- 
terests of the United States, and manifest their earnest desire to obtain 
for themselves and their citizens by amicable negociation, that justice to 
which they are entitled. 

The Prefident endeavored to effect all this by amicable 
negotiation, but he never loft fight of that vital principle in 
our national union, which pledges our fovereignty for the 

protection of the lives and liberties of our citizens on the 

i .... 

feazs well as on the land. 

He made no cold comparifon between 4000 American 
feamen in flavery and four millions of dollars to be gained 
by the carrying trade. He did not queftion the right of 
the BritifK king to his own fubjects. Mr. Madifon's letter, 
before quoted* fhews the real point in difpute. 

By reafon of the conftant imprefsment of our feamen 
and the violations of our flag on the high feas, complaints 
againft the Britifh from every quarter and from men of 
both parties were addreffed to the Secretary of State. The 
executive cabinet, which locks tip no fecret mandates from the 
French Emperor, contained the juft mandates of public opini- 
on, that our nation and commercial rights fhouid no lon- 
ger be violated. 



C n ] 



tfnder the fame juft mandates, the Prefident, (after the 
affair of the Chefapeake) hTued his proclamation, pro- 
hibiting the entrance into our waters of Britifh armed 
mips. The negotiation at London having failed, Mr. Rofe 
was fent to our government, which " he apprifed of his 
u authority to offer reparation for the attack on the Chef- 
" apeake, without fpecifying what that reparation would be ; 
tc but required that, previouJJy to its being made, the procla- 
u mation mould be revoked. He was informed that if he 
" would ftate the reparation and affurances he was im- 
" powered to make, and they mould be confidered by our 
government as fatisfactory, they would be taken as a 
c< pledge of amity, and the aci of reparation and revocation 
u of the proclamation mould bear equal date. This he 
u declined doing and the negotiation was clofed." 

On the 22d of March the President communicated the 
following: meffa^e 

7o the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Slates. 

At the opening- of the present session, I informed the legislature, that 
the. measures that had been taken with the government of Great Britain 
lor the settlement of our neutral and national rights, and of the conditions 
of commercial intercourse with that nation, had resulted in articles of a 
treaty, which could not he acceded to on our part ; that insructions had 
consequently been sent to our ministers there, to resume the negociatioii, 
and to endeavor to obtain certain alterations, and that this was interrupted 
by the transaction which took place between the frigates Leopard and Che- 
sapeake ;. the call on that government for reparation of this wrong produ- 
ced, as Congress have been already informed, the mission of a special 
minister to this country, and- the occasion is now arrived, when the pub- 
lic interest permits and requires that the whole of these proceedings 
should be made known to you. 

I therefore now communicate the instructions given to our minister 
resident at London, and his communications to that government on the 
Subject of the Chesapeak, with the correspondence which has taken 
plare here, between the Secretary of State and Mr. Rose, the special 
minister, charged with the adjustment of that difference ; the instructions 
fa c rtir ministers for the formation of a treaty ; their correspondence with 
the British commissioners, and with their own government on that sub- 
ject ; the treaty itself, and written declaration of the British commission- 
ers accompanying it ; and the instructions given by us for resuming the 
negociation, with the proceedings and correspondence subsequent thereto, 
fo these I have added a letter lately addresiedto the Secretary of State 
from one of our late ministers, which, though not strictly written in an 
official character, I think it my duty to communicate, in order that his 
■views of the proposed treaty, and of its several articles, may be' fairly pre- 

©ted'and understood. 

& 



f 15 3 



Although I have heretofore, and from time to time, made such com- 
munications to congress as to keep them possessed of a general and just 
view of the proceedings and dispostions of the government of France to- 
wards this country, yet in our present critical situation, when we find 
that no conduct on our part, however impartial and friendly, has been 
sufficient to ensure, from either belligerents, a just respect for our rights, 
I am desirous that nothing shall be omitted on my part which may add 
to your information on this subject, or contribute to the correctness of 
the views which should be formed. The papers which for these reasons 
Inow lay before you, embrace all the communications, official or verbal, 
from the French government, respecting the general relations between 
$ie two countries, which have been transmitted through our minister there, 
or through any other accredited channel, since the last session of con- 
gress, to which time, all information of the same kind had, from time to 
time, been given them. Some cf these papers have already been sub- 
mitted to congress; but it is thought better to o3V-r theni again, in order 
that the chain of communications, of which thay make a part, may be 
presented unbroken. 

When, on the 26th February, I communicated to both houses the let- 
ter of General Armstrong to M. Champagny, I desired it might not be 
published, because of the tendency of that practice to restrain injurious- 
ly the freedom of our foreign correspondence, But perceiving that this 
caution, proceeding purely from a regard to the public good, has fur- 
nished occasion for disseminating unfounded^ suspicions and insinuations, 
I am induced to believe that the good which will now result from its pub- 
lication, by confirming the confidence and union of our fellow citizens, 
will more than countervail the ordinary objection to such publication. It 
is my wish therefore that it may be now published. 

TH : JEFFERSON. 

March 22, 1808. 

All the documents on this fubject are fubmitted to Con- 
grefs and will be publimed for the information of confti- 
tuents.— Thefe will fliew that the Prefident has labored to 
comply with the refolutions of the Senate; that our difpute 
with England is not a fpark, which the Prefident has been 
blowing into a flame, that he has fought for peace and 
free commerce, and that the embargo was the only mea- 
fure, which gave you any chance of avoiding an umieceflarj 
and ruinous 'war. 

The charges, which we have examined, are not omy un- 
fupported by proof, but they are oppofed to every human 
probability. ^ 

If the accufer, (Mr. Pickering) is eminent m ofhce, the 
principal accufeJ, (Mr. Jefferfon) isfTiil more eminent. In 
addition to the rank of firft Secretary of State under Pre- 
fident Wafliington, he has been Vice-Prefident and is now 



clofmg the fecond and laft term of his Prefidential office^ 
to which he was appointed by more than ll-12ths of the 
electoral votes in the United States.— Fifteen of the feven- 
teen States are in favor of his adminiftration. He has 
been fo diflinguifhed a friend of peace and honest 
friendship with all nations, that he feas even been 
called a pufillanimous Preiident, he preferred the purchafe of 
Louiliana with money to the purchafe of it with blood. 

Never till this has lie been charged with a third for 
carnage. Is it pollible that he can now have a wifh to haz~ 
ard a dear-earnt popularity on a ruinous war ? 

Mr. Madifon, being a candidate for the next Prefidency, 
would not hazard his popularity on an unnccejfary em- 
bargo. 

Mr. Gallatin muft certainly be againfl any wanton ob- 
ilacle to the continuance of the revenue, and the Secreta- 
ries of war and of the navy can have no ambition to in- 
creafe the burdens and refponfibility of their offices.— The 
majorities in Congrefs muft have every wifh, that their 
conilituents may continue to be profperous and happy. 

None of thefe men wifh for war ; they know it to be 
the greater! calamity, which can befal a nation. The em- 
bargo was laid as a meafure of peace. Had the minifters 
•of France or of England coniidered it a v/ar meafure, they 
would have remortftrated ascainft it, but this has not been 
.done. Mr. Rofe offered no objection to it. In the Englifh 
papers and parliamentary debates, our embargo is treated 
as a pacific meafure. 

All our country is /offering by reafoa of this meafure ; 
a fmall part only are complaining. We could not expect 
that through all ages every gale ihould be blowing in fhip 
loads of wealth at the expence of the belligerent powers. 
The fame contefls, which once yielded us wealth, now 
offer us nothing but hazards and chances of lofs. If a 
long courfe of profperity has fo proftrated our political 
principles and our pride of independence and has fo effemi- 
nated us, that we cannot bear afliort fufpenfion of lux- 
uries and profits, then it is high time that neccflty mould 
excite our former energies.— No friend to his country will 
advifeustojoin either fide of the defperate combatants cf 
55 u rope* 



[ 20 ] 



When men are pre-difpofed to believe unfavorably of 
the adminiftration, ftrons; charges are fufrlcient for their 
purpoie : they never wait for p roofs. To fuch the ftory-of 
60 tons of precious ftlver, exported to France, or the equal- 
lyfalfe report of Bonaparte's declaring that he would have 
no neutrals, paiTes for revelation.— Strong charges may anf- 
wer the purpofe of an election, but if not fupported by 
ftrong proofs, fuch is the intelligence and integrity of the 
common people, that the party, which gains once by im- 
proved charges, is foon loft beyond redemption. 

In prefenting to you the letter of Mr. Pickering, con- 
nected with this reply, we have an object, unconnected 
with the approaching election and wholly diftinct. from the 
vindication of the Prefident or the j unification of the 
embargo. 

The federal leaders in our country have been charged with 
hoJUliiy to our conftitution and to our national union. This 
charge has been denied. The letter under confederation, which 
has been circulated by thefe leaders through the northefn States, 
furmfhes conclufive proof againfv them. 

Mr. Pickering is a federal ift of the higheft tone x and one 
of the firft characters of that party. He is not a republican^ 
as he is reprefented in his letter, but is feverely hoftile to 
what is called republicanism by ll-12ths of the people of 
the United States. He was appointed a Senator, when 
the governor and legiiiature of MafTachufetts werefederal ; 
he is now no more tile reprefentative of the republican gov- 
ernor andiemflature of that State than Mr. Rofe is : thev 
neither wifhed nor expected information from him. 

Mr. P. has a right to be a federalift and to believe that 
his ftatement of high crimes againft our government, at 
this alarming criiis, would be acceptable to governor Sulli- 
van and the legiiiature,— bat his ftatement was in fact an 
appeal from a minority of the Senate to a minority in 
the State of MafTachufetts. 

He tells this minority that the Prefident of the United 
States is guilty of ' perjury, having violated his oath or 
office by withholding information, which the conftitution 
required him to produce, — that the Prefident is a trailer, 
having, under the fecret mandates of Napoleon, betrayed 



[ 21 ] 



Ms country,— that the Prefident is an enemy to the people, 
having contrived, in concert with the font hern enemies of 
commerce, to have our mips perifh in our harbors, our 
60,000 feamen and fifliermen to be beggared, our hundreds 
of thoufands of farmers to be compelled to have their fur- 
plus produce perifh on their hands, " that he, the Prefi- 

dent, may make an experiment on our patience and for- 
" titude and on the towering pride and boundlefs ambition 
$? of the conqueror of France/' 

He tells this minority that the majority are acting under 
a blind confidence in the executive, that the diftrefles of 
the embargo are not produced by the condition of the 
powers of Europe, but are chargeable entirely to the wick- 
ed deiigns of our own rulers. 

Where is the conftitution of the United States, which 
guarantees to the Prefident a right of trial by impeach- 
ment before the Senate, provided any official mifconduc"fc 
is charged ©n him ? Are 22 of the Senate fo depraved, 
that it becomes neceffary to erect a high court of national 
jurifdi&ion in the county of EfTex ? 

We mere told, while Mr, Adams was Prefident and Mr, 
Pickering Secretary ef State, that majorities muft govern, mi- 
norities muft fubmit. In that d*y imprifonment and fine awaited 
the man, who defamed the Prefident and the Congrefs, and fe- 
verely denounced were ihofe, who attempted to feparate the 
people from the governments -r\$ r e live in a world where men 
change, but truth never changes. 

If you believe in Mr. Pickering's letter, you will not 
flay at home to VOTE, but you will arm and advance to 
the city of Wafhington, there you will place him at your 
head as protector of the commonwealth, you will drive 
from office the great betrayer of his country, and from their 
feats the 22 Senators and 82 Reprefentatives, who voted 
for an embargo, you will then over-run the fouthern States, 
which place " a blind confidence in the executive you 
will then felecifrom the minority an executive, in whom no con- 
fidence can be placed : the embargo act will be at an end 
and you may fend out your vefleJs— but to what port or 
place on the globe, without molefiation, no man, except Mr.. 
'Pickering can telL 



t 22 ] 



At the inftant of leaving your harbors an Englifh mid« 
fhipman may imprefs your men and leave your millions of 
property to the elements, or if this mould not happen, you 
may have the honor to be condemned under fome of the 
Britifh or French decrees againft neutral commerce.— You 
will then have a navy, to be fupported by the blood, the 
fweat and the mifery of millions. No nation can be federally 
refpeclable and really a curfe to herfelf and to all the other na- 
tions on the globe without a navy : — you can then form an 
alliance, offenfive and defenfive with England, the only 
argument againft which is, that England has ruined every 
nation, which has placed any reliance on her power or her 
promifes. 

But this argument, is met by Mr. Pickering with a mofi 
federal and feeling declaration, that England is contending 
for the liberties of the world, and that without her aid 
we lhall be colonies of France. This he has learnt from 
advocates of executive meafures ! ! ! — whofe names he prudenU 
ly forgets to remember. 

England contended for our liberties from 1775 to 1783. 
She was then taught, as (he now is, that her friends in this 
country formed the mod numerous party. The people 
were then told, as they now are, that it was a mere trifle 
about which they would contend, only a fmall duty on tea 
and (lamps, which they ought not to difpute. Then, as 
now, the Britilh were pouring troops into Canada : — then, 
as now. Sir John Johnfon was preparing the indian favages 
to contend for our liberties on the frontiers ; — then, as 
now, legidative minorities profeiTed to be in the dark and 
to call the majorities traitors and rebels. — Then, as now, the 
people were told, that their veffels would be ufelefs, their 
feamen be beggared and their mrplus produce periih on 
their hands. 

The declaration of independence, penned by Mr. JefFer- 
fon, enumerated other grievances than the trifling tax on 
tea and ftamps. — -If you have a war with England, it will be 
excited by a belief on their part, that they have more 
friends than enemies in the United States ;— that their 
friends are the great men, the rich merchants, the elo- 
quent, ftatefmen, the natural ariftocracy, the befl blood of 



t 23 ] 



fhe nation and that thefe, with the aid of editors in their pay T 
muft be able to bear down before them the body of the 
people. — This very letter of Mr. Pickering, which has been 
fo diligently circulated by the enemies of our republican 
inftitutions, will be republished in England with great ap- 
plaufe, as {hewing the fentiments of the intelligent part of 
the American Senate. In England they will rejoice that 
your Senate can be fafely denounced in the language of 
Mr. Pickering. If you mall have a war with England, the 
fame hand, which penned the firft declaration of inde- 
pendence, will pen a fecond. Then the executive cabinet^ 
which locks up proofs of Britifh fpoliations and Britifh 
mipreffments, will be opened, and you will learn that the 
point in iflue is the fovereignty of the United States. 

It is infinitely delirable that we mould avoid a war 
with all nations. The embargo is the only preventative, 
If the feafon, while you are trying the efficacy of this, is 
to be improved by agitating your minds in favor of the 
Britifh again ft your own government ; if northern and 
fouthern interefts are to be arrayed againft each other — 
if all your privations are to be charged on the treachery of 
your executive and the blind confidence of Congrefs, — and 
if you believe thefe things, you will affuredly have a civil 
war ; your conflitution will become a dead letter and the 
union of the ftates will be diffolved. 

The constitution and the national union were 
favorite themes in the parting addrefs of Prefident Wash- 
ington. Let thofe, who call themfelves his difciples 9 learn 
from him that " all obstructions to the execution 
of the laws *. all combinations and associations, 
under whatever plausible character, with the 
real design to direct, controul, counteract or. 
awe the regular deliberation and action of the 
constituted authorities, are destructive of the 
fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. 
They serve to organize faction, to give it an ar- 
tificial AND EXTRAORDINARY FORCE, TO PUT IN THE 
PLACE OF THE DELEGATED WILL OF THE NATION, THE 
WILL OF A PARTY, OFTEN A SMALL, BUT ARTFUL AND 
SNTER PRIZING MINORITY OF THE COMMUNITY." 



At the 
ihipman : 
property 
may hav< 
Brithn o] 
will then 
fweat an 
refpeciabi 
tions on t 
alliance, 
argumer 
nation, i 
promife: 

But t] 
federal z 
for the 
we fihall 

advocate 1%lr ' firing's Letter and the fireccdm? BetoUrjL o 

Engl 
She \va 
country 
were tl 
about t 
and fla 
bow, tl 
as now 
to con 
now, 1 

to call > 
people 
feamei 
their I 
Th( 

fon, e: ^ 

tea an 

excite 

frienc 



frienc 
<]ueni 



S9 




* . Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
\/ ^<j*e^* C\ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
*0» Treatment Date: May 201 

\r 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

V 111 Thomson Park Drive 

• , S * .'V Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 



(724)779-2111 



